Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 28, 2013 2:30pm-3:00pm PST

2:30 pm
valley citizen. i support the t.i.c. proposal. we know that san francisco renting or you're buying, they are both high. i hope the city will build more affordable housing. to support certain families, and san francisco is an immigration city. we need a lot of government
2:31 pm
support in housing. there are 50 of us coming here to support this proposal. i hope all supervisors will support this t.i.c. to be successful. >> co-chair kim: i have a question for the speaker. are you a t.i.c. owner? >> translator: no. >> co-chair kim: i'm curious as to why you're speaking on behalf of friends that are t.i.c. owners or if you're not one yourself, because this doesn't impact t.i.c. owners in the future that may be looking to buy. this is purely for those that currently have participated in the 2012-2013 lottery.
2:32 pm
>> translator: because i have many neighbors, and relatives. they all have that need. i volunteer in visitacion valley for over 20 years. thank you. >> chair wiener: thank you. thank you. if i could just remind, we -- again, no audible applause, booing, hissing. if you want to raise your hand to express aroofl, that's -- approval, that's great. next speaker. >> my name is kenneth laverne, i live in district 8. i'm a renter. i live on social security. i'm disabled.
2:33 pm
i think supervisors are well aware that the real estate market is red hot again right now, and there are great pressures on renters to be removed from units. i think this is another tool in the toolbox of landlords and real estate interest, to remove us from our units. i've been in my unit since 1988. i could not live in san francisco without this -- without living in rent control, and living in this unit. if i moved, my rent would triple or quadruple. i don't believe there's any enforcement in -- i don't think that the lifetime leases, from what i've seen today, from dpw, and the city attorney, that there are any real enforcement mechanisms. regardless of whether this would conflict with state law, the costa hawkins law, or ellis law.
2:34 pm
from what i've seen is the city attorney and dpw are in a state of confusion about who would enforce this, and whether they even have staff or finances to do so. so this law is being proposed without any thorough thinking-through of the enforcement mechanism. who would do it, and whether there's any resources to do it. and i agree that there are a lot less provisions for lifetime leases in this than there have been in parkmerced. mr. farrell, this does open the door to speculation. yes, there is speculation but that is why it's called speculation. and i will do everything in my power to defeat, in the next election, supervisors who vote for this law. >> chair wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> i'm here -- my name is david
2:35 pm
wallace and i'm a t.i.c. owner and i'm here to ask you to support this legislation. this legislation will have a huge impact on my future, and ability to afford my home. originally, my t.i.c. held a group loan to reform -- financial. thorn bird collapsed in 2008 and my loan was sold. it was well known that before thornberg collapsed, they allowed transfer of our group loans in the interest of thornberg and t.i.c.'s qualified buyers. after the collapse my loan was sold and no longer transferable. one of our owners was transferred out of the san francisco to san diego. she tried to sell, and at this point we all realized that we had to refinance, with a great burden to us, caused a lot of stress in our t.i.c. i was looking at coming up with $70,000 to refinance, out of my
2:36 pm
401-k. my future, everything that i had in the building, and taking money from my retirement plan. if we don't address these issues, we're going to see a collapse of the t.i.c. market. and the other thing i'd like to address is people are saying that we're not demonized. i've had discussions on facebook about this, social networking, and i can't tell you how misinformed people are, and how angry they are, and how they demonize me on this discussion. so i am being demonized. thank you. >> chair wiener: thank you. next speaker please. >> i wanted to know if my number is wrong but my understanding is homeowners is average of $500,000 to purchase something here. and for most of us, that's way unaffordable. so i would like to say that we
2:37 pm
really need, as humans, to be protecting people at the bottom, not people who can afford a half million dollar home. also i would like to say that with limited housing, i don't really understand the logic of how we are going to protect renters and owner occupied. i would say protection for tenants currently living in a building that's quertsdz, that's temporary. housing is very temporary. people move a lot. that doesn't really solve the issue of long-term. also i would like to say i'm a council for the tenants union by the way and i have seen many tenants being harassed and evicted, whether there's potential of owner occupancy it will happen and we will lose tenants who provided services that we moved here for. also, i understand what i heard was that the suggestion was the rent board was going to adjudicate these lifetime leases. the rent board is swamped. i heard from a tenant who said it took six months to get a
2:38 pm
actual -- something from the judge. by that time, if you have illegal rent increase you can't even live here anymore so that is not practical. we need to have something that helps the people that really need help here, not people who have middle income. thank you. >> chair wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is jeremy michaels, and i'm a gay senior living with aids. i've lived in the castro for nearly four decades and i'm now being evicted from my apartment of 18 years by real estate speculators through use of the ellis act to likely create t.i.c.s and like many with no other place in san franciscoy i can afford to live. i'm against this condo converse legislation. condo conversions were limited in 1981 to 200 annually because of a dramatic increase and cannibalization in the housing stock a trend which unfortunately continues today.
2:39 pm
real estate lobbyists tried twice to repeal these by proposition but both times were soundly defeated by voters. i consider the proposed legislation with its dubious claim of proavmenting low income housing as an attempt to do away with these limits and a end run around of the voters. allowing mass condo conversions will encourage more real estate speculation, and more t.i.c.s at the expense of less affluent renters and is not good or moral public policy. while i have sympathy for t.i.c. owners in regards to their financial situation, i think this is -- that that is better served by going after the banks, you know, and not other renters. my opinion. >> chair wiener: thank you very much. next speaker please.
2:40 pm
>> i want to introduce myself, i'm mark bridges, and i want to thank the supervisors for taking time to listen to us. but before i really tell you about myself, i want to tell you who i'm not and i'm not a house flipper, imnot a real estate agent, a builder, contractor or speculator. i am a middle class dad, married father, with three children, chloe, age 1 -- and i've been living in district 5, after finishing up law school in '98 and have lived in a three unit t.i.c. building for 10 years. it's my first home. i purchased it along with two other families because we wanted homeownersship. i wanted a stake in the city. i wanted to stay here and raise my family but i couldn't afford a single family house or condo or a two unit condo, because those were priced at condo rates. i wish i could have.
2:41 pm
unfortunately, it appears, in all respect that i do have a condo but merely i just have an interest in the t.i.c. and as such i'm forced to be on a jumbo loan with two other families. we're tied together financially and stuck in a loan that we can't get out of. we can't take advantage of the historic low interest rates, instead of having individual folks, that have single family or condo owners. we can't stabilize our finishes or plan for the -- finances or plan for the future because our loan is variable and subject to the market volatility. don't let the opposition tell you that this will cause rent to go up or displace tenants. they have their own agenda. as stated, plan c provides protections for units that are tenant occupied. in closing i want to say i'm a middle class home ownership is good for our city. we love our neighborhood, we
2:42 pm
want to raise our families and retire hee. if you -- you will have the support of all t.i.c. owners and it's the right thing to do. thank you. >> chair wiener: thank you very much. next speaker please. >> thank you very much. my name is nancy mcnally, and i'm a native san franciscan. i've been here 63 years. my daughter is a lawyer. she graduated bolt, she has an mba, she went to sarah lawrence. i'm a foster kid. it's kind of a miracle, what my daughter experienced by her hard work. and she was forced to move to oakland a few months ago, because she's been priced out. well, i wanted to give you a little historical information about what it's like to be an aids activist in 2013. what i noticed in '89, and i don't think any of you folks,
2:43 pm
sitting there, were here in '89 -- oh, you were. okay. i don't know how old you were, but my land lady was a small time realtor named greta from skyline. she owned quite a few properties. she decided what a great idea, i'm going to take advantage of the fact that no one is willing to rent to people with aids. i will. she kicked out people left and right, including me. and tripled the rents. they were happy to have her. no one else was willing. she took advantage. that was in '89. and so i'm an unhappy native. i'm embarrassed of the city. i love this place for almost my whole life. i'm very, very ashamed of san francisco, and the politics. thank you. >> chair wiener: thank you.
2:44 pm
next speaker please. >> thank you. i'm max -- and i've lived in san francisco for 24 years, lived in district 9 for 21, in the same rent controlled apartment, and this legislation, if it passes, could displace me. i have not been told about the long-term leases by the prospective owners. i learned about that through the tenants union. if all property owners and the speculators who are sort of drawn in by this situation were honest and forthcoming, i think we would have a lot fewer problems but as the case is, we don't. we have to get information through whatever source it's available from. and that can create some misinformation at times, but i just see a lot of people coming into the city, from other places, and really trying to push out long-term tenants like me. and it would certainly disrupt my life to have that happen. i would have to move out of
2:45 pm
state. i've had the the same job for 15 years and probably would have to quit it and move on to something else if i were displaced. so it would be nice to stay here. i think the t.i.c., although i sympathize for people who are getting into homeowners through those channels, i think the way they're going about it in the proposed legislation is a little exploitative and i'm very much concerned about that. and that's it. thank you. >> chair wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is joe donohue, i'm an author and a taxi driver. i have to agree with supervisor chiu. i believe the enforcement of this lifetime lease is rather vague. i think the numbers that she identified from the mid-2000 for condo conversions are rather straij if the limit is 200 a year. i would like to see the paperwork myself. i think since 1991 since i've been in this city when i first moved here i've lodged artists
2:46 pm
get strip mined out of the city through the reduction of affordable housing and through reduction of affordable living. and to pretend that there is no speculative interest in real estate in san francisco, when we've gone through a world recession that was caused by speculative real estate caused by the banks is disingenuous. i'm against this legislation because i don't think it will help the t.i.c. people and it certainly won't help me. i'm a renter. thank you. >> chair wiener: thank you. next speaker please. >> hi there. my name eskelly and i work in the supportive sector, and cannot afford rent in san francisco anymr. i'm attending today's hearing to gain more information about this proposal and how it affects renters and i would like to express concerns over the enforceability of the lifetime leases, without a budget or
2:47 pm
personnel, or even apparent understanding of what city department it would sit under. in this time of the digital revolution with over -- with 30% increase in tech companies in san francisco, i think it's imperative that we act cautiously and utilize the principle to guide us. the the city needs to intervene and bridge the gap between haves and have-nots. i would invite everybody to listen to the pod cast, how much can san francisco take. i just think that living in san francisco has been a really interesting experience, trying to find roommates on craig's list is chaotic. i asked if we could have a cleaning schedule, moved to the tenderloin, there was a serial rapist roaming around and then moved to oakland because i honestly can't afford rent in
2:48 pm
san francisco. ironically i worked two jobs and i work six days a week and am pretty exhausted. and i don't think that it's unfortunate that these two groups are pitted against each other but i do think that there's a solution and we have to find that. thanks. >> chair wiener: thank you very much. next speaker. >> my name is -- [speaking foreign language] >> translator: there are 15 of us in the family. this time i would like the supervisors to pass the t.i.c. proposal.
2:49 pm
to allow the t.i.c. people to buy an affordable house. so that we can have good and more perfect life in san francisco. thank you. >> chair wiener: thank you. next speaker please. >> my name is jane fox. and i've lived in the same apartment in san francisco for 18 years. i used to be a middle class contributing citizen. i am now disabled, as well as old as jesus.
2:50 pm
so this situation comes really close to my heart, as well as that of my neighbors. and i live in the mission -- well it used to be the mission. it's now kind after food ghetto. i live on vil ensia street. i used to be proud to say that. now i'm a little ashamed because of what it's turned into. i can no longer afford to get a cup of coffee on my street. i have to go over to mission street, where i can still, some places, get a cup of coffee. the average rent in san francisco now is almost two-thirds of my monthly income. and i -- i mean not only can't i afford to move, i mean -- i
2:51 pm
don't know how i would even accomplish that because, clearly, i'd have to move to like iowa or someplace to afford a place. so i am opposed to this motion. i appreciate your attempting to address the t.i.c. problem, but i do not believe this is the way to do it. i think that this is shaky business here. and i am against it. thank you. >> chair wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is renee gibbons and i've lived in the city since 1975. and i've seen, in the years since i've lived here, i see the rent control laws being diluted and diluted and diluted. i've been evicted three times from my apartment.
2:52 pm
my building that i live in right now is being turned into condominiums. the rents in san francisco are through the roof. in my neighborhood, they're getting $4,000 for rabbit -- and everybody i know, who has either been -- their buildings have become tenants in common, i know so many people who have gotten evicted. i do not know anybody who has won their case against eviction and i'm really skeptical about anything good about this proposal. how are working people suppose to do live in san francisco? the minimum wage is $10. i'm unemployed right now and being offered $11 an hour to work. how can somebody live in san francisco earning $11 an hour and pay $4,000 a month rent. it's absolutely ludicrous. we renters need somebody -- we need more people on our side. we need more people in the supervisors. we need more people in politics
2:53 pm
to take our side. thank you. >> chair wiener: thank you. next speaker. actually before the next speaker let me call another batch of cards, you can line up. marlene tran, kathy lipscom, cole burgon, wing lun, kwan su, zin shu, mulli billan, dixie -- someone wrote their name in chinese, if there's someone who might be able to read that -- syd noava, tina muy lan, mike muy lan, elizabeth young and jazzie collins. next speaker. >> hello. my name is -- scott wiener and
2:54 pm
mike farrell do not represent homeowners. that's a smokescreen. they represent big developers. they promise a lifetime lease but the city attorney has admitted there are no funds allocated to enforce the lifetime lease. obviously they have no intentions to enforce it. scott wiener and mark farrell are not representing homeowners but looking to sell our city to the highest bidder. people often don't realize that civil liberties such as freedom of self-expression are connected to people's rights of housing. look at the bush administration. he was in the business of selling america to the highest bidder. we are experiencing similar in san francisco. is it any wonders who the san francisco who -- the nudity ban, the same supervise is now destroying rent control and selling san francisco. scott wiener, mark farrell are
2:55 pm
betraying the people of san francisco. they're slick republicans dressed up as democrats. we're witnessing a corporate takeover of san francisco politics. body freedom is our birth right and no one has the right to take it away, so is everyone's right to fair housing. scott wiener, mark farrell don't belong in city hall but in jail. there is nothing obscene about the human body. political prosecution is obscene. long live -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. >> chair wiener: everyone come to order please. thank you. next speaker. >> hi, supervisors. my name is karen babette and i'm here today on behalf of the san francisco group of the
2:56 pm
sierra club and we sent awe letter on this subject back in september which i believe is in your packets but i have copies if you want more. i will read from it because otherwise there's no way you'll understand what i'm saying. the sierra club opposes the proposed condo ordinance and urgency rejection by the board of supervisors and this is for three main reasons. number one, just very practical, converting a t.i.c. to a condo doesn't create new housing. it just changes it from one type of ownership to another. the proposed fees that were discussedalty length earlier don't even come close to providing the needed funds to build replacement rental units. i understands the nexus study and did part of it but on a practical level it's odd to think that between 4,000 and 20,000 could build a replacement unit. number three, the proposed ordinance endangered san francisco's stock of controlled housing units. i know there are disagreements
2:57 pm
about what the lifetime can and can't do but that will ex-spire at some point and that unit will never be rent controlled again and it's lost forever. but we don't want to be all negative so we have other ideas. instead -- it seems to make more sense to protect rent control and the rent controlled units that we still have because you can't expand that type of housing by law as you all know and secondly the very obviously -- we want you to support construction of more affordable housing and that is part of the reason sierra club got behind prop c last fall. thank you. >> chair wiener: thank you very much. next speaker. >> thank you, supervisors. my name is jaime alvarez and i'm here with my wife. we are t.i.c. owners. we are parents. we have two kids. we have a five-year-old and an eight-year-old and we want to stay in the city. we want to be homeowners in the
2:58 pm
city. we love san francisco. we're committed to staying here and we're asking you for some assistance in that process. being part of a t.i.c. has had so many ups and downs for us but when we started this process we knew there was no guarantee. we knew, however, that we were not going to do anything to evict tenants so we bought into a building that has no tenant evictions on its record. we want -- we are in favor of making sure that everybody has the opportunity to stay in the city. i myself am a public servant as is my wife. i work for the county. i represent all kinds of people in my job. i'm a public defender. i know the struggles that my clients have, i see them in the courtroom, outside the courtroom, i know what everyone goes through. all i'm asking is for a fair opportunity to be a homeowner in san francisco. i went to high school in the city. my wife's family grew up on
2:59 pm
24th and bryant. we live in the mission. i'm asking for the opportunity to stay here, to raise my family, to raise my kids, to show them what an amazing city this is, to show them that they can live here, that they can set down roots and know that this city will always be there for them. we love it. please let us stay. thank you. >> chair wiener: thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon. members of the land use committee, i'm here today to represent san francisco ace, the appliance of californians for community empowerment. at our membership on saturday, the 26th of january we voted overwhelmingly with union dissending vote to strongly oppose the fast tracking of 2,000 t.i.c.s to condominiums. our major focus that is with our allies to pressure banks not to for close and evict